Updated January 17, 2013.

We thought that the beginning of the year would be a good time to update you on bisphenol A (BPA): the ubiquitous chemical that is found in canned goods, register receipts, children's products, plastics and even dental sealants, and is linked with health impacts including behavioral impacts in young children, reproductive issues, miscarriage in pregnant women, diabetes, obesity and cancer.

In 2012, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) banned BPA from baby bottles and sippy cups nationally. At this point, eleven states had done the hard work of banning BPA from these products, including New York and California. Manufacturers realized this was a losing battle, and the American Chemistry Council (ACC) took the unusual step of asking the FDA directly to ban the chemical from baby bottles and sippy cups. When asking for the ban, the ACC—the industry group that lobbies on behalf of chemical companies—directly cited the number of state bans that had passed as a reason for requesting an FDA ruling. This group had worked very hard to keep BPA bans out of the states, using industry tricks and millions of dollars. But they realized that the public and the tide were against them and requested the federal ruling.

But BPA is still present in so many products that we come into contact with every day, and we continue to learn about the health impacts associated with BPA.

A study reported this month in Environmental Health Perspectives tells us that high levels of BPA present in a mother's urine may be a marker of stunted fetal growth. While the study cautions that further evidence is needed before this can be extrapolated to the greater population, the findings among the subjects of the study were significant enough to be reported. This study comes out on the heels of a UC Berkeley study last fall which shows a link between bisphenol A levels in mothers and thryoid hormone changes in newborn boys.

"Most of the women and newborns in our study had thyroid hormone levels within a normal range, but when we consider the impact of these results at a population level, we get concerned about a shift in the distribution that would affect those on the borderline," said study lead author Jonathan Chevrier, research epidemiologist at UC Berkeley's Center for Environmental Research and Children's Health (CERCH). "In addition, studies suggest that small changes in thyroid level, even if they're within normal limits, may still have a cognitive effect."

The good news is that we continue to make progress in removing BPA from products affecting the most vulnerable populations.

Just last week, a law was signed in Suffolk County, New York that will prohibit the use of receipt paper containing BPA in the county. Connecticut was the first state to pass a receipts law in 2011, and we're hoping that Suffolk County will help lead to a ban in New York State. The BPA that is present in receipts is quite insidious; it is applied to receipt paper as a thin powder to help during the thermal binding of ink to paper. The powder easily rubs off and gets into our skin and elsewhere. This is of concern to all populations, but it is especially worrisome for cashiers and others who handle receipts many hours a day for their jobs—they are being unfairly exposed to this harmful toxic chemical.

Good news is coming out of Europe, as well, where France has banned BPA from containers that are intended for food. The law will take effect in two stages, with children being protected this year, and then food containers for adults being free of BPA in 2015.

The fight to get BPA out of baby bottles and sippy cups was a tough one, and there are many other products that contain BPA that need to be addressed. Maine is working on a ban on BPA in the lids of baby food jars, and has identified safer alternatives.

Update: Within a couple days of of the original publication date of this post, the Maine Board of Environmental Protection unanimously declared their intention to extend Maine's BPA ban to include infant formula packaging and baby food containers. After a board vote, the recommendation will go to the legislature and a ban could take effect as early as August 15, 2013 (more info).

We hope that in 2013 states will again lead the way to national changes and we'll be able to get BPA out of receipts, food containers for babies and cans and other containers that come in contact with our food. It's time for this ubiquitous toxic chemical to go.

You can keep apprised of the fight against BPA by checking our bisphenol A fact page.

"When Bobbi Chase Wilding looked for an environmentally safe, healthy mattress for children, she found a confusing blizzard of green-sounding claims, seals and logos."

"Of about 190 crib mattresses sold nationwide, manufacturers of more than half made environmental or health claims, often backed by one or more official-sounding certifications. Among those making green claims were 39 models that used potentially dangerous chemicals."

"'Words like natural, pure, green and eco sound reassuring, but they had no clear definition, and can be used by anyone,' said Wilding, director of Albany-based Clean and Healthy New York, who examined children's mattresses for a safety study last year. 'Some manufacturers are trying to profit without changing.'"

Read the rest of the story at the Times Union: Digging up the dirt on 'greenwashing'.

Nearly each day, four million people in the United States go to work as janitors, cleaners, maids, housekeepers, landscaping and groundskeeping workers, pesticide handlers and other maintenance occupations. Over 3% of the workforce is employed in these jobs, which are among the lowest paying jobs in the country.¹ But the below-average wages aren't the worst thing about the job: these people are exposed to toxic chemicals in their workplace on a daily basis.

According to workers' compensation data, six out of every 100 custodians have a lost-time injury every year due to chemical exposure.² The majority of injuries involve eye irritation and burns, skin irritation and burns, or breathing chemical fumes. And these are just the short-term effects.

The chemicals used to clean our schools, statehouses, libraries and office buildings in every town and city often contain caustic toxic chemicals linked with asthma, cancer, respiratory issues, hormone disruption, endocrine system issues and other negative health effects. Just the products used to clean commercial PVC floors contain a long list of toxic chemicals associated with all manner of health issues.³ And the problems don't stop there.

Nearly each day, another four million people in the United States go to work as retail salespersons and cashiers.⁴ Many of those workers spend their days handling register receipts—receipts that are often coated with a thin layer of bisphenol-A (BPA) coating, which may be transferred to fingers, and then onto food and into the mouth. BPA is associated with health effects such as hormone disruption and reproductive issues.

Nearly each day, over 400,000 people in the United States go to work in salons and spas as hairdressers, hairstylists, cosmetologists, manicurists and pedicurists. There, they are exposed to formaldehyde and many other chemicals which are associated with respiratory issues, endocrine system issues, skin problems and headaches.

This means that some of the laborers on the lowest part of the pay scale—workers who affect many of our lives each day—are in danger of harming themselves, and their families, physically because of the toxic chemicals they work with daily. Many of these workers have no choice but to take the jobs that put them in harm's way.

What is being done?

Green cleaning laws to help keep janitorial staff healthy

Some states are recognizing that it is unjust to expose workers to avoidable toxic chemicals. Eleven states have passed laws promoting "green cleaning," replacing toxic cleaning chemicals with safer alternatives. Generally, these laws set rules over what can be used in state-owned buildings or over cleaning chemicals that are purchased by the state. This is not insignificant, as each state owns many buildings including schools and large buildings where government is run.

Green cleaning laws look to protect the children and employees who work in these buildings, as well as to protect the laborers who come into direct contact with the chemicals.

Illinois passed one of the earliest green cleaning laws with its 2007 Green Cleaning Schools Act.⁵ The law requires that safe cleaning and maintenance products be used in public and non-public schools throughout the state.

This year, advocacy groups in Maryland joined with the State Education Association, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) to help pass a green cleaning law with nearly unanimous, bipartisan support (173 yays, 5 nays over both houses). The new law will strengthen Maryland's green cleaning purchasing within schools, and will put into place science-based health standards for products.

"We owe those who work in our state the safest and healthiest workplaces we can possibly provide. Where safer alternatives exist, there is no excuse for putting the health and welfare of workers at risk by making them work with completely avoidable toxic chemicals."

– Statement by the Massachusetts AFL-CIO.

Removing BPA from receipts to change health risks for cashiers.

Last year, the state of Connecticut became the first state in the nation to pass a law banning BPA from register receipts, starting in 2013. "This is one more important step in removing toxic chemicals from our environment," said state Representative Richard Roy, House Chairman of the Environment Committee. "It is incumbent upon us to do all we can to clear our living spaces, especially for workers and our children."

A couple of states have followed in Connecticut's footsteps and introduced BPA in receipts bills in the 2012 legislative session: Illinois introduced HB5373, and New York introduced AB212. With bills prohibiting BPA from register receipts, these states are clearing the way for a safer workplace for tens of thousands of cashiers.

Getting toxic chemicals out of nail and beauty salons.

As we discussed on this site in March, there are many dangerous chemicals in salons which threaten the health of stylists, manicurists and the like. In the absence of federal oversight of chemicals like formaldehyde in cosmetics, some states are attempting to take on regulation of these products. This year, the state of New York introduced a bill which would prohibit the sales of nail products containing formaldehyde, toluene, and dibutyl phthalate—chemicals which are associated with respiratory trouble, endocrine and central nervous system disruption.

Labor groups backing environmental health changes

In many states, labor unions are Safer States partners and are working hard to get toxic chemicals out of work environments. Many of the workers we have discussed here are poor, minority, immigrant populations who are afraid to speak up for fear of losing their jobs, and groups representing labor are speaking up on their behalf. Labor groups are putting laws governing toxic chemicals in the workplace at that top of their agendas nationwide.

MassCOSH, or the Massachusetts Coalition for Occupational Safety and Health, is a top example of an organization that is working hard on workers' behalves. Through grants and outreach, they have worked to educate labor unions about toxic chemicals and safer alternatives. As a result, Labor Councils representing over 150,000 workers and 6 unions in Massachusetts have begun to take steps to make changes including requesting safer alternatives to toxic cleaning products.

"MassCOSH has been an invaluable partner in helping to improve worker safety in Massachusetts. Their Environmental Justice for Cleaning Workers Campaign has brought to light the high asthma rates and increased heart attack rate among cleaning workers, and has begun to move the needle toward safety. For instance, their work with SEIU 615 resulted in Logan Airport's cleaning contractor eliminating the most hazardous chemicals from use at the airport."

– Cindy Luppi, The Alliance for a Healthy Tomorrow.

Workers have noticed changes in their workplaces due to MassCOSH's work. "When I worked at the Ritz, nobody had received training in the use of chemicals or the equipment needed to protect them," said Nelson Pineda, a janitor who cleans luxury condominium complexes and a member of SEIU Local 615. "But when MassCOSH put out a report on the working conditions, the company began to give training and the needed protective equipment."⁶

MassCOSH's work is just one example of what is happening across the country: groups advocating for the health of workers who help to enact state laws or company policies that will help to protect worker health. In the meantime, where is federal government oversight?

During a protest in 2010 against the toxic chemicals in the workplace, Mike Chavez, political coordinator of SEIU Local 1877 in California said it best. Many of the chemicals used for cleaning are outlawed in penitentiaries and schools, he said. "How is it that we're protecting criminals from these chemicals and we're exposing the general public, in this case our janitors, to them?"⁷

References

¹ Occupational Employment and Wages, May 2011 (pdf). Bureau of Labor Statistics, US Department of Labor.
² The Right to Know: School Custodial Maintenance Workers (pdf). American Federation of Teachers, Health and Safety Program.
³ PVC Flooring & Toxic Cleaning Products in Schools. Center for Health, Environment & Justice.
⁴ Occupational Employment and Wages, May 2011 (pdf). Bureau of Labor Statistics, US Department of Labor.
⁵ HB0895 text. State of Illinois
⁶ Environmental Justice for Cleaning Workers Campaign. Massachusetts Coalition for Occupational Safety and Health.
⁷ Janitors Protest Albertsons' Use of Allegedly Toxic Chemicals. HildaZacarias.com.

Editor's Note: The following post was originally published at the site of our partner coalition, Clean and Healthy New York.

In a bipartisan victory for children's health, the New York State Assembly passed A. 9045, which expands the Tris-free Children and Babies Act to include the form of tris (TDCPP) that was removed from children's sleepwear in 1979 because it can mutate DNA. Studies have since shown that TDCPP can harm the developing brain, disrupt hormones, and cause cancer.

The State of California's Carcinogen Identification Council has determined it is a carcinogen. The diverse collaboration of health-affected organizations, environmental justice groups, teachers, nurses, business leaders and environmental health organizations, known as the JustGreen Partnership, praised the bill's passage, and urged the New York Senate to follow suit.

"I am proud to have accomplished one of my legislative priorities with the strong bi-partisan passage of the expanded Tris-free Children and Babies Act," said Assemblyman Robert Sweeney, Environmental Conservation Committee Chair and bill sponsor. "New York must continue its leadership on this important issue and ensure babies and children no longer suffer continual exposure to TDCPP."

Senator Mark Grisanti sponsors matching legislation in the Senate, after championing the Tris-free Children and Babies Act through its passage in that house last year. New York is the first in the nation to address the problem of Tris chemicals being used in children's products. Several other states, including Washington, Maryland and Connecticut, are following suit this year with tris phaseout legislation.

"In 2011, I proudly sponsored the law that banned TCEP in children's products from being sold in New York," said Senator Mark Grisanti, Environmental Conservation Committee Chair. "As I said at that time, we need to do more in the area of protecting our children from harmful chemicals. I am delighted to see bi-partisan support from my colleagues in the Assembly in the ban on TDCPP in products for infants and children. I hope to see that same bipartisanship in the Senate with support for the passage of matching legislation I sponsor. Removing TDCPP from baby products will help make babies' home environments healthier."

"This is one step closer to NYS recognizing that we can support our business leaders' ability to innovate and provide the safer and healthier products that consumers are demanding. This is a win for our businesses and our NYS economy," said David Levine, CEO, American Sustainable Business Council, representing through its members over 100,000 businesses.

TDCPP is widely used in polyurethane foam used in children's products. A study from Duke University found TDCPP in 36% of baby products. A report released earlier this year by the Washington Toxics Coalition found TDCPP in 80% of the products tested.

TDCPP is added in order to meet an antiquated, and ultimately ineffectual, California-only regulation known as "Technical Bulletin 117." In fact, despite being marketed as a flame retardant, TDCPP as used in foam-containing infant and children's products provides no fire safety benefit – and when it burns, it releases chlorine gas, which quickly converts to lethal hydrochloric acid in the lungs. It also releases more carbon monoxide and soot in fires than products that don't contain these chemicals.

"It's hard to believe that the same chlorinated Tris flame retardant that our research helped remove from baby pajamas in 1977 is back in use in children's products." said Arlene Blum, PhD, a Visiting Scholar at the University of California, Berkeley Chemistry Department and Executive Director of the Green Science Policy Institute. "These children's products do not pose a fire hazard and the Tris increases the toxicity of a fire if they were to burn."

"Infant and children's product makers' insistence on complying everywhere to a useless, outdated California-only standard has put New York's babies and children in a lose-lose situation: they lose by being exposed to a toxic chemical day in and day out, and they lose because they're accruing no actual fire safety benefit. By banning TDCPP in babies' and children's products, the Assembly has taken an important step toward a much healthier, safer environment for our kids," said Kathy Curtis, Executive Director of Clean and Healthy New York.

"The International Association of Fire Fighters supported the phase-out of pentaBDE because of the harm it posed to fire fighters and building occupants alike, with a call for less-toxic fire safety methods. Now it appears companies simply switched from one dangerous chemical to another," said Dennis Sweeney, Health and Safety Training Coordinator for the New York State Professional Fire Fighters Association. "Protecting fire fighters and building occupants from fire is critical, and we can and must do it without exposing babies and children to chemicals that harm their health. Companies can and must make safe products without cancer-causing chemicals that release toxic gases when they burn."

"Children of color and those in low-income communities are subjected to health threats from many environmental factors," said Cecil Corbin-Mark, Deputy Director of WEACT for Environmental Justice, based in Harlem. "Adding the insult of daily indoor exposure to cancer-causing chemicals makes no sense. Then factor in the increased difficulty of exiting a large building during a fire, when the smoke becomes more lethal, and the picture is clear: TDCPP has no place in products for our kids. We thank the Assembly for their action, and urge the Senate to act with all due haste."

"The dirty little secret is that toxic flame retardants like TRIS don't provide additional fire safety, increase environmental hazards for fire fighters and expose children to toxic chemicals. The only beneficiaries appear to be the chemical manufacturers," said Russ Haven, Legislative Counsel for NYPIRG. "The Assembly has done its job, now it's up to the Senate to protect New York's children from this toxic exposure."

Lead, arsenic, cadmium, formaldehyde, mercury. These are some of the toxic ingredients that are found in products that we put on our skin, in our hair, and on our lips that ultimately make it into our bodies where they can wreak havoc with endocrine systems, neural development, reproductive systems and contribute to higher levels of cancer.

These ingredients are unreported and hard to track, even for the most scrupulous consumer. Annie Leonard, who produced The Story of Cosmetics in partnership with The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics said it best: "It turns out the important decisions don't happen when I choose to take a product off the shelf. They happen when companies and governments decide what should be put on the shelves."

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) oversees regulations governing cosmetics. However, regulation is a term used loosely, as manufacturers can use nearly every chemical and ingredient, man-made or natural, in a cosmetic without approval from the FDA.¹

What is considered a cosmetic?

According to the FDA,² the following types of products are seen as cosmetics: skin moisturizers, perfumes, lipsticks, fingernail polishes, eye and facial makeup preparations, shampoos, permanent waves, hair colors, toothpastes, and deodorants.

As is the case with many other toxic chemicals (BPA laws, cadmium laws, flame retardants and others) regulation is beginning with the states. While an overhaul of the federal regulations overseeing cosmetics would have to pass through the United States Congress, dodge strong-arming tactics of industry lobbyists, and make it through regulatory translation, a state law or regulation can be implemented within a relatively short period of time, and quickly start protecting residents.

What's lead doing in our lipstick?

Late last year, the FDA published the results of an analysis of hundreds of lipsticks, which found measurable amounts of lead in 400 different lipsticks. Lead is a persistent, bioaccumulative toxic metal, which means that it builds up in our systems and does not break down. It's been associated with neurological effects like seizures and impaired concentration, and with reproductive effects such as miscarriages and reduced sperm count, and is a developmental neurotoxin which may cause significant issues for children.

"Lead is a proven neurotoxin that can cause learning, language and behavioral problems such as lowered IQ, reduced school performance and increased aggression. Pregnant women and young children are particularly vulnerable to lead exposure, because lead easily crosses the placenta and enters the fetal brain where it can interfere with normal development," according to Sean Palfrey, MD, a professor of pediatrics and public health at Boston University and the medical director of Boston's Lead Poisoning Prevention Program.³

As is the case with many cosmetics products, consumers wishing to avoid lead in lipstick would be hard-pressed to do so without eschewing lipstick altogether. "The truth of the matter is a majority of lipsticks on the market, especially those with color additives, will contain some amount of lead," writes Sheila Viswanathan of the GoodGuide's science team.⁴ It gets into lipstick via source materials that contain lead. But there are widely varying amounts of lead, and it's clear that best practices could minimize the amount of lead contamination in lipstick significantly.

The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, arguing that there is no safe level for lead for children and pregnant women, has sent a letter (pdf) to the FDA requesting the lowest possible limits for lead in lipstick.

Hair straighteners and nail polishes: posing a risk for salon workers.

When Molly Scrutton, a hair stylist in Oregon, started experiencing respiratory and other health issues in 2010, she began to look into the Brazilian Blowout product, a heat-activated straightening chemical used in salons. Scrutton had the product tested and researchers found high levels of formaldehyde in the product, which is an extreme irritant to the eyes, nose and throat.

Two years after the initial findings, the manufacturers of Brazilian Blowout agreed to put a warning on the product about the hazards of formaldehyde and the need to use the product in a well-ventilated area.⁵ However, this only came after California and Oregon took legal action against the company.

Similarly, nail polishes and hardeners contain several toxic chemicals, called the "toxic trio," which present a problem less for women who use them once every couple of weeks, and more for salon workers who are exposed to the chemicals on a daily basis. The toxic trio is a group of three toxic chemicals that are often found in nail products: formaldehyde, toluene which is associated with negative effects to the central nervous system,⁶ and dibutyl phthalate which is associated with endocrine system disruption. Nail salon workers are often young immigrant women, and studies have shown that they have a greater prevalence of respiratory, skin problems and headaches when compared with the general population.⁷

After consumer group pressure, some companies have agreed to remove this toxic trio of chemicals from their products in the past few years. And the state of New York is working to make their removal mandatory with a proposed law, AB 1473, which would prohibit the manufacture, distribution and sale of nail polish and nail hardener containing any of the toxic trio. The law is currently in committee.

Toxic chemical laws around the United States, federal and state laws, need to be in place that can flex and bend to keep chemicals out of our lives.

"Currently, it is nearly impossible to identify the presence of carcinogens, reproductive or developmental toxins on a product's label because companies are not required to list them. So, even if women are armed with knowledge about the potential presence of toxic chemicals, there is virtually no way for them to make informed decisions about the products they buy."

- Michelle Noehren, founder of Connecticut Working Moms.

Proactive state bills could protect the most vulnerable populations from toxic chemicals in cosmetics.

Bills are being proposed in statehouses throughout the country to keep toxic products from getting into consumer products using a process of identifying priority chemicals and encouraging businesses (through incentives or rules) to choose safer alternatives. Connecticut's Senate Bill 274 would address a strategy for getting the worst-of-the-worst chemicals out of children's products. In its current iteration, SB 274 would cover products such as cosmetics intended for children under 12 years of age, phasing toxic chemicals out of children's shampoos, lotions, soaps and toothpastes.

Oregon entertained a bill this legislative session which could have an affect on toxic chemicals in cosmetics. House Bill 4151 would require that products purchased by state agencies be submitted with a transparent list of ingredients and chemicals of concern, and that purchasing decisions factor in this list.⁸ All other things being equal, the state agencies would, under this bill, be required to choose a product that is safer for human health and the environment over one containing chemicals of concern. Like the proposed Connecticut law, Oregon's would begin to set into place a new way of thinking about chemicals of concern, and would provide the legal backup for safer products to be used in lieu of unsafe ones.

This will prove to be a big year for makers of children's personal care products, as well as parents and policymakers in Washington State. Beginning August 2012, manufacturers of personal care products, including cosmetics, intended for children will be required to disclose whether products contain any of the 66 chemicals that have been identified by the state⁹ as a concern for children's health. These chemicals of concern include chemicals used in cosmetics like formaldehyde, parabens, and 1,4 dioxane.

The new requirements are the result of Washington State's Children's Safe Products Act, which passed in 2008. Advocates and policymakers hope the information on chemical in personal care products will not only help parents make better decisions about what products to use, but also inform policymakers of where problem chemicals are showing up in products so they can implement policies to tackle the problem.

Europe is leading the charge against toxic chemicals in cosmetics.

It is easy to feel defeatist about toxic chemicals in cosmetics. They're so pervasive that it seems maybe it is impossible to get them out of chemicals. But the European Union (EU) is doing an admirable job of protecting citizens in all 25 EU countries from the worst-of-the-worst chemicals in cosmetics. As of January 2003, 1100 chemicals are banned from cosmetics (vs. the United States' ban of 11 chemicals), proving that it is possible to set rules that cosmetics companies have to follow. Many companies are reformulating their product for EU acceptance, but still selling toxic-laden products in countries like the US that allow it.

The best-case scenario for strong cosmetics reform in the United States would be strong action on the federal level, with a standard plan across industries to identify the worst-of-the-worst chemicals and create an efficient strategy for getting them out of our lives quickly. However, as is the case with many chemical laws in this country, the states can take the lead on reforming the cosmetics industry on a state-by-state level until that can happen. Sometimes it takes state reform to prove to the federal branches that change is possible and imperative.

Look to the rest of the states to begin to join with Connecticut, New York, Washington and Oregon to demand change from cosmetic manufacturers, and protect consumers from the rampant use of toxic chemicals in cosmetics.

References

¹ Ingredients prohibited & restricted by FDA regulations. www.FDA.gov, May 30, 2000.
² Cosmetics Q&A: "Personal care products". www.FDA.gov, December 14, 2011.
³ Lead In lipstick. The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics.
⁴ What Science Makes the Cut. The Good Guide, February 10, 2012.
⁵ Brazilian Blowout agrees to post formaldehyde warning. The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, January 31, 2012.
⁶ Toluene fact page. www.FDA.gov.
⁷ At Some Nail Salons, Feeling Pretty and Green. The New York Times, November 10, 2010.
⁸ Fostering green chemistry innovation through healthy state purchasing: Policy concept. Oregon Environmental Council.
⁹ The Reporting list of chemicals of high concern to children. Washington State Department of Ecology.

Recent reports show that toxic chemicals are found in every corner of our lives. They are being found in everything from foam in children's products to household cleaners and canned foods. This month, we rounded up some of the most significant studies from our partner organizations. These studies outline the ubiquity of toxic chemicals, and point the way toward solutions.

Fortunately, not all the news is bad. It was discovered that some products don't contain the worst-of-the-worst toxic chemicals, proving that it is possible to create these products with safer alternatives.

And when The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics announced that Johnson & Johnson baby shampoo still contains a harmful, formaldehyde-releasing chemical, the pressure of the news caused Johnson & Johnson to finally agree to remove it. While getting a harmful chemical out of a baby shampoo shouldn't require such action, it is encouraging to see forward motion away from toxic chemicals in some situations.

Washington Toxics Coalition and Safer States
Hidden Hazards in the Nursery (pdf)

Many nursery items contain toxic Tris flame retardants.

In a study released today by the Washington Toxics Coalition and SAFER states we learn that many foam products in children's nurseries contain high levels of toxic flame retardants. These chemicals are associated with health concerns such as lower birth weights, changes in thyroid hormone levels which affect critical metabolic functions, and lower IQ in children.

As we discussed on this site in September, the world of chemical flame retardants is an alphabet soup of names and chemical mixtures. As quickly as some chemicals are being banned, the chemical industry is creating new combinations which skirt the rules.

Washington Toxics Coalition in partnership with Safer States purchased foam-containing baby and children's items from major retailers in six states. They sent samples of the foam to a Duke University research laboratory for testing.

The study found:

• Chlorinated Tris (TDCPP) was present in 16 of 20 products. TDCPP is the chemical that was voluntarily removed from children's pajamas in the 1970s because of health concerns.
• The level of flame retardants in products was high. The 17 products that contained toxic flame retardants had an average of 3.9% by foam weight.
• These flame retardants are not chemically bound to the foam, which means that they escape from the products and get into the air and household dust, endangering the health of all in the home.

The real key to banning toxic flame retardants is a comprehensive policy which identifies the worst-of-the-worst chemicals, and sets in place a plan for phase-out in favor of safer alternatives. The states have seen that using the laser-focus of an individual chemical ban hand-in-hand with sweeping comprehensive policy is the most effective way to reduce toxic exposure to adults and little ones alike. Several states will be taking up the charge of toxic flame retardants this year, following in the footsteps of states like New York, which banned TCEP, a toxic Tris flame retardant, in 2011.

Women's Voices for the Earth
Dirty Secrets: What's Hiding in your Cleaning Products?

Hidden toxics in household cleaners underline the need for mandatory disclosure.

Women's Voices for the Earth (WVE) commissioned a laboratory to test 20 popular cleaning products for hidden toxic chemicals from the five top companies: Clorox, Procter & Gamble, Reckitt Benckiser, SC Johnson and Son, and Sunshine Makers (Simple Green). The report was particularly looking for undeclared and hidden toxic chemicals in products like all-purpose cleaners, laundry detergents, dryer sheets, air fresheners, disinfectant sprays and furniture polish.

WVE found:

• Some of the products tested contained reproductive toxins, carcinogens, and hormone disruptors.
• Allergens were detected in several products, with the most being found in fragranced air fresheners.
• Some "fragrance-free" products contained allergens.
• All toxic chemicals and allergens were undisclosed on the products' labels.

Simple Green, which bills itself as creating "non-toxic, biodegradable and environmentally safer cleaning products" contained several chemicals which cause health issues ranging from allergies to neurodevelopmental problems. One Simple Green product was found to have Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, which is part of the phthalate family associated with health risks such as lowered testosterone and lowered metabolism, which affect obesity rates. Simple Green had previously pledged to remove phthalates from its products.

WVE's findings underline the need for consistent ingredient disclosure, mandated and standardized on the federal level, so that consumers can make informed decisions about their household cleaning products.

The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics
Baby's Tub is Still Toxic

A report that changed the most famous children's shampoo.

In "Baby's Tub is Still Toxic", The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics—a coalition of women's, public health, labor, environmental health, and consumer's rights organizations—raised concerns about in Johnson & Johnson's use of quaternium-15 in the formula for its baby shampoos in the U.S. and some countries (but not in others). Quaternium-15 is of concern to environmental health advocates because it releases formaldehyde into cosmetics products. Formaldehyde is a carcinogenic chemical that is an extreme irritant to the eyes, nose and throat.

In a victory for the campaign, just as the report was being released Johnson & Johnson publicly stated¹ they were phasing out the use of formaldehyde- releasing chemicals from its baby products worldwide. The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics also announced that 322 cosmetics companies have met the goals of the Compact for Safe Cosmetics, the Campaign's voluntary pledge to avoid chemicals banned by health agencies outside the U.S. and to fully disclose product ingredients – a pioneering practice in the cosmetics industry².

These major successes by The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics prove that companies sometimes respond when consumer outrage is loud enough. But here's the thing: it took scientific analysis, dedicated dollars, and a coalition to identify the chemical in a baby shampoo. Federal disclosure laws should mandate that companies inform parents of any toxic chemicals in products used on their children.

Breast Cancer Fund
BPA in Thanksgiving Canned Food

Another BPA in cans test, same frustrating results.

In November, the Breast Cancer Fund released a report which studied the levels of bisphenol-A (BPA) in cans of food that would typically be used at the Thanksgiving dinner table: cream of mushroom soup, turkey gravy, evaporated milk, creamed corn, canned green beans, canned pumpkin, and cranberry sauce.

The report reinforced previous study results and found harmful amounts of BPA in cans. BPA in cans comes from the epoxy-resin can liner which is used to seal in the food.

The amount of BPA contained in the products which would be combined at a Thanksgiving meal reached levels which have been tied to health effects such as increased risk of breast cancer, reproductive effects, prostrate issues, obesity, and metabolic functions. The levels would be especially harmful to fetuses and infants.

An especially frustrating fact for environmental health advocates is that the levels of BPA varied from state to state and even from can to can across the same product. Del Monte Fresh Cut Sweet Corn, Cream Style had undetectable levels in New York, 4 parts per billion (ppb) of BPA in California, but 221 ppb in Minnesota (the highest result of the test). Moreover, BPA levels were not tied to a predictor such as expiration date. This means that consumers cannot depend on BPA levels to be consistent for a particular product, which makes protecting one's family from BPA all the more difficult without removing canned food from the diet altogether.

A Lot of Work To Do

We at Safer States are often reporting on victories among the states, be it bans on specific chemicals or wide-sweeping policies which encourage safer chemical alternatives. But these reports remind us that we have a long way to go. Until consumer products are safe from toxic chemicals which threaten the health of children and adults alike, our work is not done.

This year, we will continue to push for:

1. Specific policies which quickly phase out the worst-of-the-worst chemicals. Focus on toxic chemicals like BPA, phthalates and toxic Tris on the state level is the quickest path to getting them out of our lives.
2. Comprehensive policies on the state level that address the backbone of how we deal with toxic chemicals. States need to set policies into place which dictate how chemical companies manufacture and sell consumer products, and whether those products contain toxic chemicals.
3. Federal reform of the Toxic Substances Control Act, which is the law that oversees chemical policies on a federal level and is hopelessly out of date.

In our next post, look for specific ways that advocates around the country will be looking to pass policies in 2012 state legislative sessions that better protect citizens from these toxic threats.

References

¹Letter from Susan Nettesheim to Lisa Archer Johnson & Johnson, November 16 2011.
²Market Shift: Hundreds of Cosmetics Companies Fulfill Safe Products Pledge Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, November 30 2011.

It's no secret that the United States is battling overwhelming issues with obesity. Current statistics show that 34% of Americans are clinically obese, and 68% are overweight¹, and the federal government has found that a third of American children are obese or overweight.

This is having a tremendous consequence on the nation as a whole, including an estimated economic cost of $270 billion per year in the United States, according to a report² released this year. The costs come in need for medical care and the loss of worker productivity due to death and disability.

So, as a society, we are tackling obesity in all the expected ways. We are encouraging adults and children alike to eat less, eat better, move more, and to live healthy lifestyles. We are reevaluating school lunch programs, insisting that fast food restaurants provide healthy options, and encouraging healthy decisions at every juncture.

But what if some chemicals we were exposed to every day were making us fat? Enter obesogens. Science has recently uncovered that exposure to certain chemicals sets the stage for obesity.

While obesity is a very complicated, multicausal issue, it is becoming increasingly clear that certain chemicals, dubbed obesogens, act upon genes in utero and may predispose some humans to becoming obese.

Bruce Blumberg, developmental biologist at University of California, Irvine, coined the term "obesogens" and is considered to be one of the lead researchers on the subject. "Diet and exercise are insufficient to explain the obesity epidemic, particularly the epidemic of obese six-month-old babies," he says³.

Last year, many scientists and medical doctors joined together to write a letter to First Lady Michelle Obama⁴ regarding her hard work to bring down obesity rates in the United States. Mrs. Obama has launched the "Let's Move" program⁵ which encourages children to eat healthily and get active to maintain a healthy weight. The letter to Mrs. Obama requested that the federal government take a holistic approach to obesity, acknowledge that chemicals are contributing to the obesity epidemic, and consider national chemical policy reform as an essential part of the campaign against childhood obesity.

Obesogens are quickly becoming a high priority among environmental advocates. Last month, our partner organization in Maine, the Environmental Health Strategy Center, hosted a conference focusing on chemicals and their role in obesity and diabetes. The conference included discussions of scientific studies supporting the obesogen hypothesis, and lectures by leading researchers including Dr. Blumberg, and Dr. Mark Mitchell whose work covers obesity In minority and low-income populations⁶.

Which chemicals are obesogens?

Some chemicals act as endocrine disruptors, which means that when they get in our systems they mimic or block hormones in the endocrine system, and interfere with the body's normal regulation of bodily functions. With regard to obesity, endocrine system hormones regulate hunger, fat storage, and the rate at which fat is burned—all important attributes which affect whether you gain or lose weight.

Bruce Blumberg's research⁷ indicates that obesogens can target the growth of a fetus and trigger more fat cells to be produced, setting the fetus up for a lifetime of body fat accumulation.

There are many ways that babies, children and adults are exposed to obesogenic chemicals, and most are chemicals that are commonly found in our households.

Bisphenol-A (BPA). A chemical that is ubiquitous and used to strengthen hard plastics, to make ink adhere to thermal receipt paper, and to coat metal food containers. Approximately six pounds of BPA are produced for every American per year⁸. It is an endocrine disruptor and has been tied to health effects including obesity and diabetes.

Phthalates. A group of chemicals that are used as plasticizers. They are found widely in our homes. Susan Freinkel, in her book Plastic: A toxic love story, lists out some of the places where phthalates are found:

"Phthalates have become so ubiquitous in consumer and industrial products that manufacturers make nearly half a billion pounds of them each year. They're used as plasticizers, lubricants, and solvents. You'll find phthalates in anything made of soft vinyl. But you'll find phthalates in other types of plastic and other materials too, in food packaging and food-processing equipment, in construction materials, clothing, household furnishings, wallpaper, toys, personal-care products such as cosmetics, shampoos, and perfumes; adhesives, insecticides, waxes, inks, varnishes, lacquers, coatings, and paints. They're even used in the time-release coating for medications and nutritional substances."

Phthalates are associated with health effects including lowered testosterone and lowered metabolism, which affect obesity rates.

Organotins. Used in several industrial applications, certain organotins are considered obesogens. In the past, some organotins were used as marine ship paints, and then leached into marine life, water, and was eventually ingested by humans. Their use in marine paint has been phased out, but "incompletely," according to some⁹. Additionally, organotins are used to make plastics, food packages, plastic pipes, pesticides and pest repellents¹⁰. It is thought that organotins interfere with the way that the body forms fat, and causes fat storage to be increased¹¹.

Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA). Found in the environment, PFOA has been detected in household items such as non-stick cookware, stain resistant carpets, and microwave popcorn bags. A study¹² in 2009 showed that low doses of in utero exposure to PFOA in mice resulted in overweight mice in mid-life.

There are other obesogens, and you can see that the breadth of their reach could be overwhelming to a mother who is trying to protect her children from harmful chemicals.

Janet Tauro, board chairman of the New Jersey Environmental Federation, the state chapter of Clean Water Action, and mother of two teenagers summarizes the pressure many parents feel:

"The most fundamental thing a parent can do is make your family home a safe and healthy place to be. That is becoming progressively difficult because so many products in our homes are filled with an alphabet soup of chemicals, even chemicals that are suspected of causing obesity. Shame on the chemical industry for foisting unnecessary chemicals on the American public and contributing to making our kids sick and obese."

We can't possibly expect individuals to be able to keep track of all the harmful chemicals, and how to avoid them. While in a reasonable scenario, we could expect the federal government to vet the chemicals that are in our homes, that is not happening.

The law that oversees chemical policies on a federal level is hopelessly out of date, and an overhaul of that law is stuck in a quagmire in Congress. This year, the Safe Chemicals Act was introduced into Congress which would help to modernize the Toxic Chemicals Safety Act (TSCA) and update it from its 1970s beginnings. The law is outdated enough that there is bi-partisan support for new legislation, and a hearing was held last week to help advance its passage. "I believe there has never been such broad agreement that TSCA needs to be fixed" said Ted Sturdevant, director of the Washington State Department of Ecology. "States are urging Congress to fix this law so we establish a strong federal system that ensures the safety of chemicals in commerce."

In the meantime, the states are taking over protection where possible.

Comprehensive policies can tackle new discoveries like obesogens

In the absence of proper oversight of chemicals, many states are taking a two-pronged approach to getting dangerous chemicals out of the lives of their residents:

1. Banning the use of individual chemicals to get them out of our homes quickly. This has happened in many states with BPA, cadmium, and certain toxic flame retardants. Single-chemical bans are particularly helpful when the threat to our health and environment is clear, and public outcry about a chemical is loud.
2. Passing comprehensive policies which take a more holistic approach to chemical use within a state, and affect the lifecycle of chemical use from manufacture to household use to disposal. While single-chemical bans are imperative in some situations, the chemical industry often abandons an outlawed chemical for an equally harmful one, causing environmental advocates to play whack-a-mole with laws, and to constantly be a step behind the chemical industry's games.

What we're learning from obesogens science, and other similar efforts, is that we need to build laws that are flexible enough to respond to new concerns with chemicals. Laws that can bend and adapt as emerging science pushes chemical understanding further, and as the chemical industry constantly innovates.

The best comprehensive laws in the nation:

Allow for constant evaluation of chemicals, and have a process for identifying the worst-of-the-worst chemicals. Several states now have policies in place to identify the worst-of-the-worst chemicals, and some states are working together, as it's not always feasible for an individual state to do the research for the state list.

For instance, Minnesota's "Toxic Free Kids Act," passed in 2009, required the creation of a "Priority Chemicals" list, and allowed for additions to the list dependent on work done by other state agencies including the California Environmental Protection Agency, the Washington Department of Ecology, the United States Department of Health, the United States Environmental Protection Agency, the United Nation's World Health Organization, and European Parliament Annex XIV.

By identifying a process for chemicals to be admitted on to priority lists, states are acknowledging the fluidity of chemical manufacture. "If one chemical is banned," says Kathy Curtis, the Executive Director of Clean and Healthy New York, "the industry moves a few molecules and calls it a new product." Priority chemical lists are better able to react when this occurs than are specific chemical bans.

Work hand-in-hand with manufacturers to phase the worst-of-the-worst chemicals out in favor of safer alternatives. States don't have the resources to determine safe alternatives for every harmful chemical that is in our households. So, the best comprehensive laws are creating mechanisms to work hand-in-hand with manufacturers to get harmful chemicals out in favor of safer alternatives. Maine's law has policies in place to require manufacturers to demonstrate alternatives to priority chemicals.

Create incentives for those manufacturers who are doing it right. Many states are discussing financial incentives for manufacturers who use safe alternatives to toxic chemicals. In 2010, Minnesota passed a policy which stated that companies who meet the definition of "green chemistry" (as defined in the Minnesota Toxic Free Kids Act) were eligible to access economic development programs.

Gather information about where chemicals are used, or require reporting of chemical use. Washington's Childrens' Safe Products Act, passed into law in 2008, will now require that any children's products containing any of the Chemicals of High Concern to Children¹³ be reported, beginning in 2012. This provides an incentive to manufacturers to get harmful chemicals out in lieu of safer alternatives before the reporting requirement begins, so that their products are not listed.

Consumers are starting to ask the hard questions about what's in our everyday products, and they are becoming less and less tolerant of the manufacturers' unwillingness to disclose ingredients. Laws like Washington's are acknowledging the need of consumers to have more information.

State chemical laws are not only helping the residents of the state where they are passed; they are sending a message to the federal government that it is possible to regulate chemicals in a successful way. As Delegate James Hubbard, a safe chemicals leader in Maryland, says, "When you start working at the state level then Congress sees that the legislation is possible."¹⁴

The passage of state chemical laws also sends a message to the chemical industry that the time for harmful chemicals in our household products is limited. It's becoming clear that chemicals have health effects that were never originally anticipated; obesity is having major repercussions on society as a whole, and it is imperative that we quash the role that toxic chemicals play on our weight, and the weight of our children.

References

¹Endocrine disrupting chemicals and the developmental programming of adipogenesis and obesity. Birth Defects Research Part C: Embryo Today, March 2011.
²Cost of obesity approaching $300 billion a year. USA Today, January 12, 2011.
³Prenatal Exposures Prompt EPA to Re-examine Chemical Regulations New York Times, November 16, 2010.
⁴Letter to Michelle Obama. The Collaborative on Health and the Environment, March 29, 2010.
⁵Let's Move.
⁶Chemical Obesity Conference Proceedings. Colby College, October 14, 2011.
⁷Endocrine disrupters as obesogens. Molecular and Cellular Endocrinology, March 29, 2011.
⁸Chemical profile: Bisphenol A. ICIS, January 14, 2008.
⁹Identification of environmental obesogens or is the environment making us fat? Bruce Blumberg, PhD.
¹⁰Tins and compounds, ToxFAQs for Tin Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry, August 2005.
¹¹Enter the obesogen. The Economist, February 22, 2007.
¹²Phenotypic dichotomy following developmental exposure to perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) in female CD-1 mice: Low doses induce elevated serum leptin and insulin, and overweight in mid-life. Molecular and Cellular Endocrinology, May 25, 2009.
¹³The reporting list of chemicals of high concern to children. Department of Ecology, State of Washington.
¹⁴Our Heroes: Fathers, Grandfathers, Legislators. Safer States, July 7, 2011.

Updated October 13, 2011

Toxic flame retardants are one of the most common sources of toxicity in our homes and our lives. They are used on everything from computer casings, to furniture, to carpeting, to children's products. "The problem is, they don't stay put," says Rebecca Williams, a reporter for The Environment Report¹. "They leach out of products and they get into us."

Health concerns surrounding these chemicals—including everything from cancer to thyroid issues to reproductive harm—are serious enough that many groups including fire professionals are interested in getting toxic flame retardants out of our daily lives.

From a letter² released by the International Association of Fire Fighters:

"Many studies involving fire fighters exposed to these and other toxic gases during active fire fighting, overhaul, and long term exposure from these chemicals penetrating protective gear, have found that fire fighters have a much greater risk of contracting cancer, heart and lung disease, and other debilitating diseases. While we support the concept of flame retardant chemicals, there are [safer] alternatives."

When we talk about toxic flame retardants on Safer States, we are referring to a whole group of chemicals that are used on household products for the purposes of slowing down combustion. Unlike some chemicals (cadmium, for example), the concern isn't with a specific single chemical. Instead, we reference a group of chemicals intended for a single purpose, nearly all of which have been shown to have harmful effects on children, fire fighters, fish and wildlife.

In this post, we will be discussing a variety of flame retardants, particularly PBDE flame retardants and toxic Tris flame retardants. PBDEs are a class of flame retardants formerly used in many household products. Tris flame retardants are used in baby products, couches, car seats, and other household items. Several flame retardants have been banned or phased out in the United States, but others are still used as ingredients in every day products. You can see a more specific glossary of flame retardants at the end of this post.

Banning toxic flame retardants doesn't mean they disappear.

Even when banned or eliminated, toxic flame retardants can stick around in our environment. Many of them are considered to be persistent, bioaccumulative toxics (PBTs) which means that they build up in our systems, stick around in the environment for years and migrate broadly beyond national boundaries.

The pervasiveness of toxic flame retardants was recently illustrated in a California study that revealed high levels of flame retardants in second-trimester California women—despite the fact that some of the most harmful of the flame retardants (penta-BDE and octa-BDE) were banned in California in 2004. "Despite the ban, blood levels of flame retardant chemicals are two times higher for California residents than for people in the rest of the country," says Ami Zota, one of the study authors³. Because flame retardants are meant to be difficult to breakdown, it can take decades for levels in the environment and people to decrease, making it even more critical that they are phased out of commerce quickly.

Moms & fire professionals are in favor of banning toxic flame retardants.

Given mounting evidence of health concerns, environmental health advocates, fire professionals and many other affected groups are interested in replacing toxic flame retardants with safer alternatives. In August of this year, moms in 17 states—-from coast to coast--joined together in a "National Day of Action" to:

1. Raise awareness about toxic flame retardants and other chemicals of concern, and
2. To encourage their members of Congress to pass legislation in favor of toxic chemical reform.

Fire fighters and other safety personnel have emerged as strong advocates for the phase-out of toxic flame retardants in certain applications in favor of safer alternatives—many of them believe that the health threats from toxic flame retardants outweigh the arguable benefits. Fire fighters in each state where toxic flame retardant bills have been introduced have gone on record to support the restriction of flame retardants⁴.

Health Concerns associated with Toxic Flame Retardants

• Researchers have found that women with high levels of PBDEs in their blood are more likely to have lower birth weights than women with low levels of PBDEs. "There is a growing body of evidence that PBDE exposure impacts human health, and not a lot of evidence that these chemicals are making our homes safer from fires," remarks UC Berkeley professor Brenda Eskenazi who led the study, "Other chemical flame retardants are replacing the old PBDEs, but more information is needed about exposure to the newer chemicals. More attention should also be given to finding non-chemical approaches to achieving fire safety."⁵
• Studies have shown that even brief exposure to toxic flame retardants can affect thyroid hormone levels. The thyroid is responsible for body growth and development, and metabolism in the body—critical functions especially for developing fetuses and children. Decreases in thyroid levels at critical periods of growth can disrupt brain development.⁶
• Flame retardant build-up is often demonstrated in household dust, and studies have shown that high toxic flame retardant levels in household dust are associated with high levels in the inhabitants of that home. High levels of toxic flame retardants in households have been associated with lower-quality sperm in men⁷, lower IQ in children⁸ and lowered fertility in women⁹.
• Research shows that tris flame retardants are probable carcinogens. TDCPP, used many years ago in children's pajamas, was eliminated for this reason. However, TDCPP is one of the most commonly used flame retardants in other products.

Whack-A-Mole with our health: Ban one chemical and a new one pops up.

Environmental advocates who are trying to protect vulnerable populations from toxic chemicals are confronted with a tricky challenge: Flame retardants run the gamut of chemical compounds and specific combinations of chemicals.

When one toxic flame retardant is outlawed, another pops up with health effects that are harmful to children and vulnerable populations, creating a game of whack-a-mole with the chemical industry substituting the banned chemicals with the latest toxic chemical. If one chemical is banned, "The industry moves a few molecules and calls it a new product," says Kathy Curtis, the policy director of Clean New York.

Industry fear-mongering on the state level to defeat safe products bills.

The industry that wants to keep flame retardants in American products is motivated by big dollars. Flame retardants are a large chunk of the multi-billion dollar chemical industry in the United States. An article in Salon¹⁰ last year details the industry efforts against flame retardant bills. Calling their front-group "Citizens for Fire Safety," industry moves from state to state trying to defeat laws protecting children from toxic flame retardants.

In 2008, then California Assemblyman Mark Leno worked on passing a bill to ban toxic flame retardants in the state (which was defeated). When talking about industry efforts, Leno remarked "I should have expected it... This is about large quantities of money, so of course they are going to protect every inch of their turf. We were out-staffed 10 to one. They are disseminating and spreading fear every step they take, showing images of buildings going up in flames, with the implication that I wanted to set children on fire."

Bans on specific chemicals are the first step.

Several states have been successful in banning specific toxic flame retardants. Years ago, some PBDEs were outlawed in specific states. Deca-BDE was widely considered to be one of the worst PBDEs, and many states moved to ban it. Maine, Vermont, Oregon and Washington have specific bans on the books. In Washington State, the law could not go into place until safer alternatives were identified that met fire safety standards. The state successfully identified those alternatives, proving that it is possible to create household products free from certain toxic flame retardants¹¹.

These bans, and promises of more state bans across the nation, put significant pressure on manufacturers, and in December 2009, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) negotiated with three major manufacturers to phase out Deca-BDE throughout the United States, effectively phasing out mainstream use of Deca-BDE for certain applications throughout the U.S.

Recently, New York State passed a law banning TCEP, a toxic tris flame retardant, from products intended for use by children under three including baby toys, car seats, crib mattresses and strollers. In a recent scientific study, TCEP was found in 17% of foam baby products tested.

Update, 10/12/2011: Within a couple weeks of the original publication date of this post, the Carcinogen Identification committee of California, a scientific committee appointed by the California Governor, moved to regulate TDCPP by adding it to the Proposition 65 list of chemicals. This move means that chlorinated Tris may be listed on products in California as a chemical which is known to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity. (More info.)

Comprehensive bills are the secret to banning toxic flame retardants.

Bans on specific toxic flame retardants are helpful, especially when the targets are the worst-of-the-worst chemical compounds such as toxic tris and PBDEs; these specific bans often help to move the chemicals out of the population quickly and decisively.

However, the real key to banning toxic flame retardants is a comprehensive policy which identifies the worst-of-the-worst chemicals, and sets in place a plan for phase-out in favor of safer alternatives. The states have seen that using the laser-focus of an individual chemical ban hand-in-hand with sweeping comprehensive policy is the most effective way to reduce toxic exposure to adults and little ones alike.

Comprehensive bills like those passed in Maine and Washington state help to make institutional changes on a broad level in the states: they lay out a plan for the identification of toxic chemicals, create incentives for choosing safer alternatives, and often work proactively with retailers to be sure that the safest possible products are being sold there.

On the federal level, the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) should be overseeing the release of these chemicals into consumer products, but it is decades-old, outdated, and does not require testing of chemicals or a "proof of safety" test for chemicals before they are used. Senator Frank Lautenberg introduced the Safe Chemicals Act of 2011 which would overhaul TSCA. The proposed bill was introduced into the U.S. Senate in April, and to date has not progressed further.

We are looking forward to the rest of the 2011-2012 legislative session when many more states will be pushing hard against these ubiquitous chemicals. While TSCA reform is still being worked out on the federal level, the states are picking up the slack by banning toxic flame retardants in more and more products. And much in the way that bisphenol-A bans are rolling across the country, we look forward to the big day when so many states are banning toxic flame retardants that a sea-change occurs on the manufacturing level for all Americans.

Resources

¹Is fire safety putting us at risk? The Environment Report, 2010.
²Letter to LeRoy Wilkison from the International Association of Firefighters (pdf). January 22, 2008.
³Study finds high levels of flame retardant chemicals in california pregnant women. University of California San Francisco, August 10, 2011.
⁴CFC SB 772 fact sheet: Toxic flame retardants and fire safety alternatives. Consumer Federation of California.
⁵Flame retardants linked to lower birthweight babies. UC Berkeley News Center, August 30, 2011.
⁶Thyroid hormone understanding branches out: Insights into PBDE impacts on brain development. Environmental Health Perspectives, February 1, 2011. Disruption of Thyroid hormone receptor–mediated transcription and thyroid hormone–induced Purkinje Cell dendrite arborization by polybrominated diphenyl ethers. Environmental Health Perspectives, February 2011.
⁷House dust concentrations of organophosphate flame retardants in relation to hormone levels and semen quality parameters. Environmental Health Perspectives, March 2010.
⁸Prenatal exposure to PBDEs and neurodevelopment. Environmental Health Perspectives, May 2010.
⁹PBDE concentrations in women’s serum and fecundability. Environmental Health Perspectives, May 2010.
¹⁰The poison crib: When protective chemicals harm. Salon, June 10, 2010.
¹¹Alternatives to Deca-BDE in televisions and computers and residential upholstered furniture.State of Washington, Department of Ecology, January 2009.
¹²Flame Retardants TDCP and TCEP (pdf). National Resources Defense Council, July 2010.

by Mary Brune

Tomorrow, August 11th, is my daughter Olivia's birthday. My almost second-grader, who just finished reading "Harry Potter" book, is turning seven. It's hard to believe. Tomorrow we'll celebrate this milestone in the presence of family, give her gifts, and enjoy the Brune birthday staple: ice cream cake.

But today, while the rest of our family frolics in the sand at the Jersey shore, my daughter and I will travel two and a half hours by train to New York City to join other mothers and children in celebrating another important event: The National Stroller Brigade Day of Action in support of The Safe Chemicals Act of 2011.

The New York event is one of several taking place across the country, to either thank Senators for being—or encourage them to become—a co-sponsor of this important chemical reform legislation. In New York, we will be thanking both Senators Gillibrand and Schumer for their early formal support for these common sense reforms. Senator Gillibrand, as another concerned mom, has been increasingly active around the need to better protect our children and has played a leading role in this effort.

As kids, my two sisters and I were exposed to pesticides that were sprayed to control mosquitoes in our town. If I close my eyes, I can still conjure the acrid smell of the showers that rained down on us as we chased the truck around the streets in our neighborhood. At the time, we had no idea what we were doing could harm our health. Fast-forward thirty years and those innocent romps behind the "bug truck" have indeed left their mark: multiple miscarriages for me, one sister with fibroids and a hysterectomy at thirty-three, and another unable to conceive. Turns out that what we don't know about toxic chemicals can indeed hurt us.

That's why we need serious chemical policy reform. The burden to prove a chemical causes cancer or disease should not be placed on the individual. Why wait decades, after a chemical has polluted our air, poisoned our water, and infiltrated our food supply before we stop using it? Chemical companies should be required to ensure that their products are safe before they are allowed to be used in commerce. I don't think that's too much to ask, do you?

Some reading this might wonder why I've whisked my daughter away from the sandcastle-building and shell-collecting freedom of her beach vacation to the thick city air and busy subways of Manhattan. That's a fair question. Truth be told, I questioned the reasoning myself.

When it comes down to it, we're doing it because I want her to see what she created. Without her, I wouldn't be a mother. Without her, I would never have learned six and a half years ago that toxins in our environment were making their way into our bodies and into mothers' milk. I might never have developed the keen sense of outrage I feel when I hear about mercury in our air, perchlorate in our water, lead in our toys, and phthalates in our shampoo. I might never have known how strong a mother's drive to protect her family can be, nor how powerful mothers' voices are when raised in unison to demand change.

At seven, Olivia already understands why eating organic food is the right choice, and willingly surrenders holiday presents for lead testing without complaint. She glares with disapproval at the black smoke billowing out of factory smokestacks. Like any parent who hopes that their children will grow up to share their ideals, I admit I feel some swell of pride in my heart on such occasions. But I also feel regret. When I was Olivia's age I was cruising around town on my bike without a care in the world; I wish her the same carefree existence. Kids shouldn't have to wonder if their toys are tainted with lead. They should just get to play. Parents shouldn't have to worry whether their kids' bubble bath has cancer-causing chemicals; they should just enjoy splashing with them in the tub and living in the moment.

On the eve of my little girl's birthday, I want to give her this gift above all others: a childhood untainted by toxic toys; teenage years unblemished by concerns over which cosmetics are safe (because they all will be); a path to motherhood that doesn't involve the heartbreak of infertility or pregnancy loss; a future free of preventable diseases linked to toxic chemical exposures.

That's why we're heading to New York today to join other moms there, and across the country in realizing this vision for our children's future. And let me tell you, when moms get together, we get the job done. Senators, please take note and add your voice to the growing chorus of support for the Safe Chemicals Act of 2011.

Persistent, bioaccumulative toxics, commonly known as PBTs, are a group of toxic chemicals that are joined together by some common features. Common PBTs in our lives include mercury, DDT, cadmium, lead, and several groups of chemicals including PCBs, toxic flame retardants (PBDEs) and dioxins. While these chemicals have many different uses in our lives, and different effects on our health, they are joined together by the following facts:

1. PBTs are persistent. These chemicals are often used in manufacturing because of the exact features that cause great, great trouble in our environment: they don't break down, and they stay in the environment for a very long time. PCBs, for instance, are man-made mixtures of chlorinated compounds that are used in manufacturing because they are non-flammable, have a high boiling point, and are insoluble in water: all features that make them very difficult to dispose of.
2. PBTs are bioaccumulative. Once these chemicals are ingested by living creatures, they build up in fatty tissue, and move up the food chain as they are consumed by bigger creatures, eventually making their way into our diets.
3. PBTs are toxic. These chemicals have been associated with all manner of health effects: mercury affects the nervous system of developing fetuses, chronic exposure to DDT affects the liver and kidneys among other parts of the body, cadmium has been labeled by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a probable carcinogen, lead exposure in adults results in neurological effects like seizures, PCBs pose a cancer risk, PBDEs have been found to be endocrine disruptors, and dioxins cause reproductive and developmental problems.

Perhaps as important as the above features, PBTs know no borders. DDT and PCBs have not been used widely in the United States for over thirty years, yet they persist in our water and in our animals all over the world, and thus in the bodies of many human beings.

"Persistence is a great trait if you're job hunting, learning to play the piano or potty training your child. But when it comes to toxic chemicals, persistence is a characteristic that spells trouble for people, animals and the environment."

- Nena Baker, author of "The Body Toxic".

These chemicals are the worst of the worst (see chart below for a complete description of the chemicals), and for that reason, they are receiving special attention from environmental advocates in many states. While the federal government is still determining how to handle PBT contamination on a national level, many states are taking the lead in eliminating these dangerous chemicals.

Tackling PBTs in Washington State

Much of Washington State surrounds water. Between the Puget Sound (which has 2,000 miles of coastline), and the many rivers and lakes, much of the state's economy depends on healthy water.

As a result of increasing populations in the Puget Sound area in the second half of the 20th century, many toxic chemicals are found in the Sound, including PCBs, dioxins and PBDEs. Harbor seals have been found to have levels of PCBs that were three times higher than harbor seals in other common areas¹ and orcas have high levels of PBDEs.

"The decline in some marine mammal populations is linked to the prevalence of flame retardant chemicals and other persistent organic pollutants"

- Jean-Michel Cousteau, Ocean Futures Society

Additionally, studies have found high levels of perfluorinated chemicals (PFCs) in osprey eggs in the Columbia River² in concentrations which were higher than the surrounding environment – proving the bioaccumulative effect of these chemicals. It is suspected that the high levels got to the osprey eggs by way of the fish that compose their diet. The Department of Ecology has also found high levels of PBDEs in the fish of the Spokane River, and are searching for a source of the chemical which is not immediately clear.³

Due to the extreme effect of PBTs on Washington State, the state plays a leadership role in going after PBTs and developing strategies to handle these dangerous chemicals:

• In 2000, Washington State became the first state in the nation to have a mandated, long-term PBT strategy. The legislature allocated $800,000 to identify the worst-of-the-worst PBTs.
• In 2003, the state legislature banned the use of mercury in most consumer applications.
• In 2007, Washington banned PBDEs from mattresses, televisions, computers and residential upholstered furniture.

"Washington is blazing a trail that other states and the international community can watch and learn from."

- Center for International Environmental Law.

Alaskan indigenous people show high PBT exposure

Due to its location, Alaska is a hemispheric sink for PBT chemicals. Few of the chemicals are manufactured in Alaska, rather "Alaska is on the receiving end of toxic chemicals that arrive in the north via wind and ocean currents," says Pam Miller, the executive director of Alaska Community Action on Toxics. Once the contaminants arrive in the Arctic, they are trapped by the cold climate – a process known as global distillation.

"Indigenous Arctic peoples are among the most highly exposed people on earth to toxic chemicals, because these chemicals—DDT, PCBs, brominated flame retardants, and perflourinated compounds, to name a few—are persistent, and drift hundreds and thousands of miles north on wind and ocean currents from where they are manufactured from more southern latitudes. These chemicals contaminate our traditional foods and affect our health and the health of our children,"

- Vi Waghiyi (Yupik Eskimo) Tribal Member.⁴

Alaska's wildlife tests high for contamination—there are high levels of DDT in bald eagles, sea otters and Steller sea lions, and some orcas have tested at levels which show them to be among the most contaminated mammals on earth.⁵

In Alaska, more than other places, PBTs make their way into the bodies of its citizens—namely the Alaskan tribal communities – via food. Alaskan tribal communities are closely dependent on traditional foods that include fish and marine mammals. "This is a physical, spiritual, and cultural dependence on the land and ocean," says Miller. Native peoples are eating foods at the top of the food chain that are oil and fat based, where the toxic chemicals are the most highly concentrated.

Though Alaska is a perfect argument for the need for federal legislation—its citizens are receiving many more chemicals than they are manufacturing – the state is still tackling toxic chemical legislation on the state level.

Environmental advocates this year introduced a State Senate bill which would phase out the sale of PBDE chemicals from consumer products in order to protect Alaskans from developmental effects, thyroid disruption, and adverse reproductive effects.

Even in far-afield Alaska, some of the well-known dissidents of flame retardant bans have been showing up at hearings for this bill. Under the guise of protecting people from fires, representatives from the Citizens for Fire Safety – an industry group with a goal of protecting the $4 billion-a-year global market for flame retardants⁶—show up at nearly all hearings regarding flame retardants. This front group takes their playbook from the tobacco industry who worked to fight all Clean Indoor acts and other anti-smoking legislative initiatives.⁷

The truth is the phase-out of toxic PBDEs is supported by many citizens, physicians and even firefighter groups. Those who fight fires are among the people who are in the most danger from high PBDE exposure.

The Great Lakes' Toxic Legacy: Great Lakes Areas of Concern. Click image to view larger.
Credit: Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families.

The Great Lakes: A melting pot for PBTs

The Great Lakes cover over 10,000 miles of coast line, and are the largest surface area of freshwater in the world. They are bordered by two countries and eight U.S. states, and they provide drinking water for 40 million people. Unfortunately, they also have a history of pollution and contamination.⁸

The EPA has identified 43 Areas of Concern around the Great Lakes (26 in the United States). – areas that have undergone a significant change in its chemical, physical, or biological integrity. These changes can include things like changes in algae growth, tainted fish, or a problem with drinking water.

Due to the fact that the Great Lakes are also bordered by Canada, a special agreement was entered into between the U.S. and Canada in 1972. The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement⁹ shows the intention of both countries to "restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the waters of the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem." The agreement has served to reduce many of the pollutants in the lakes; however they do not address the contaminants that the federal Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) does not recognize.

Therefore, many PBTs are still found in the lakes. For instance, in Lake Superior the levels of PBDEs doubled every 3-4 years between 1980 and 2000, Lake Erie has extremely high levels of mercury, lead and PCBs, and there have been over 1500 advisories against eating fish in the Great Lakes due to the presence of many PBT chemicals.¹⁰

Environmental advocates in the states around the Great Lakes have been doing what they can to protect the lakes via state legislation:

• In 2008, the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin Water Resources Compact was signed by the legislatures of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin and the President of the United States. It is a binding interstate compact that provides a framework to enact protective laws, including environmental protection standards.
• The state of Michigan tried to pass a PBDE ban last year that is similar to the bans in Vermont, Oregon, Washington and Maine.
• New York, which borders Lake Ontario, has several pieces of PBT legislation this session, including a ban on cadmium in consumer products, a limit on lead in jewelry, a limit on PBDE flame retardants, and a comprehensive bill which would establish a list of chemicals of concern, presumably including many PBT toxins.
• Last year, the state of Illinois became the third state in the nation to restrict cadmium in children's jewelry. Illinois joins another Great Lake state—Minnesota—in this groundbreaking ban.

The Safe Chemicals Act: taking PBT cues from the states

This month, the Safe Chemicals Act of 2011 was introduced into the U.S. Senate, sponsored by Senators Lautenberg (NJ), Boxer (CA), Klobuchar (MN), and Schumer (NY). This law will overhaul the antiquated Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), which has not been updated since first passed in the 1970's, and is so weak, it makes true regulation of toxic chemicals in this country nearly impossible.

If there's one thing we know about PBT chemicals, it's that they don't respect state borders – which is why it is critical that the federal government's policies work hand-in-hand with state legislation to keep Americans safe from these harmful toxins which risk the health of our families.

"We need a fix at the federal level so that we don't have to do this in the states," said Ted Sturdevant, Director of the Washington State Department of Ecology. "States have limited resources and lack the tools of federal agencies to drive a national program. However, until we have a national solution, we will continue to act on chemical safety concerns in our states."

The 2011 Safe Chemicals Act gives special priority to PBT chemicals, classifying them as particularly harmful and will hopefully give the EPA the support it needs to move swiftly against the use of PBTs when safer alternatives are available. The states have begun the hard process of eliminating PBTs, and in the case of the Great Lakes Water Resources Compact, they've even banded together to create regional regulations. But without the backup of the federal government, future generations will still be dealing with the consequences of ubiquitous PBT use.

"I'm pleased that the 2011 version of the Safe Chemicals Act directly targets persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT) chemicals and requires actions to quickly achieve the 'greatest practicable reductions in exposure' to them. Some state legislatures have also identified PBTs as chemicals of high concern and are acting as best they can to restrict their use, but it's time for the federal government to ensure all Americans are protected. These chemicals know no borders, and a national approach is essential."

- Dr. Richard Denison, Senior Scientist, Environmental Defense Fund.

You can read more about the Safe Chemicals Act, and keep abreast of its progress at Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families.

Worst-of-the-Worst PBT Chemicals

PBTs that are marked with an asterisk (*) are considered to be persistent organic pollutants (POPs) by the Stockholm Convention, a treaty that has been signed by over 100 countries (but not the United States) to eliminate the most harmful contaminants that are persistent in the environment and cross borders.

Resources

¹U.S. States and the Global POPs Treaty. Center for International Environmental Law, May 2005.
²Study affirms state's aim to reduce perfluorinated compounds. State of Washington, Department of Ecology, 08/10/2010.
³Toxic flame retardants may be decreasing in Spokane River fish. State of Washington, Department of Ecology, 03/22/11.
⁴Chemical Reform Urgent for People of Color and Low Income Communities. Native American Times, 04/11/11
⁵Contaminants in Alaska: is America's Arctic at Risk? An Interagency Collaborative Paper (US Department of Interior, US Environmental Protection Agency, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, et al.link, 2000.
⁶ACC announces the North American Flame Retardant Alliance.American Chemistry Council, 03/31/11.
⁷Citizens for Fire Safety Exposed: A chemical industry front group for manufacturers of toxic flame retardants (PBDEs). Environmental Health Fund.
⁸Great Lakes Basin Facts. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
⁹Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. Environmental Protection Agency.
¹⁰Toxic Substances Control Act: Failing the Great Lakes. Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families.